Why do we find Nissan Pathfinders in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents?

Hmmmm interesting. I'd make the assumption that Pathfinders must be either:
1. Inherently unsafe vehicles to own and drive
2. Owned and driven by a disproportionate number of stupid and careless people.

Hmmmm interesting. I'd make the assumption that Pathfinders must be either:
1. Inherently unsafe vehicles to own and drive
2. Owned and driven by a disproportionate number of stupid and careless people.

But that's just me.

Every page in every gun control thread the same far-right/wacked-out arguments are made:
Cars kill more people than guns.....The amount of bullets fired is meaningless....Why don't we ban steak knives....blah blah blah.

Many of those on the far right have no business even being allowed input in the gun control discussion because their input is basically this:

Every page in every gun control thread the same far-right/wacked-out arguments are made:
Cars kill more people than guns.....The amount of bullets fired is meaningless....Why don't we ban steak knives....blah blah blah.

All of that is political hyperbole. Just like the "you don't need an AR-15" argument.

Many of those on the far right have no business even being allowed input in the gun control discussion because their input is basically this:

And some of you clowns on the left have no business even voting, because you don't care much about the rights you're supposed to be protecting, heck you don't even know what the right to self-defense is if you're trying to take it away from yourself.

All of that is political hyperbole. Just like the "you don't need an AR-15" argument.

Far from hyperbole....the AWB was the law of the land from 1994-2004 & should be again.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

And some of you clowns on the left have no business even voting, because you don't care much about the rights you're supposed to be protecting, heck you don't even know what the right to self-defense is if you're trying to take it away from yourself.

Countries need weapons of war for self-defense, individual citizens don't.

Oy.... okay, I had to go back and find it. This is the specific claim you were disputing:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

She had an excuse? That's what you're saying? Well guess what, so did hundreds of other people. Feinstein's not the only one the NWLF targeted, and none of those others got CCW's.

Let me see - so, there are two parts to this claim, as near as I can tell -

1. the NWLF targeted others, and
2. none of the others got CCW's.

Okay - so - part one:

( a) In 1970, a small group of radicals joined together in San Francisco to form the New World Liberation Front (NWLF). According to John Wolf (1981, pp. 63–64), the NWLF was responsible for 30 bombings over the course of the next 7 years. The NWLF claimed to be a "moral" revolutionary group, and it attacked only "legitimate" targets symbolized by corporate capitalism. Utility companies were a favorite, and the NWLF also bombed two sheriff’s vehicles in the San Francisco area. They were at war with the establishment.

Now, the second part, is that none of those people (the ones who were in San Francisco) got CCW's.

That's also easy to establish.

Dianne Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco from 1978 thru 1988.

Senator Feinstein is a staunch gun control advocate. Despite her stance, in the 1970s, she obtained a concealed firearms carry permit, and carried a handgun with her. A CCW permit was then rare in California, and was the only such permit in San Francisco. At the time, she was the target of a terrorist group that had shot out all the windows in her home. She no longer carries a gun.

"The only such permit in San Francisco", which was my assertion in the first place, and it's corroborated by many sources, not the least of which is the City of San Francisco itself! You can go right to the city archives and look at the permits issued, and you can verify the truth for yourself. And I'm too lazy to do that right now, but I've done it before, and you can do it too.

Hyperbole is not your friend, non, and you really should avoid it. You've made claims that you're simply unable to prove as fact (but I'm glad you tried, anyway; maybe you'll learn to stop spouting undocumented nonsense from this little exercise ).

1. You insisted DiFi issued herself a CCW. But of course, she did not; the Chief of Police did.

2. You insisted that "none of the other people targeted by the NWLF got CCWs." When called on your hyperbole, you try to change your claim to "none of those people (the ones who were in San Francisco) got CCW's." Changing your assertion in mid-stream just isn't cricket, my friend. Unless and until you can show that, other than DiFi, not ONE person targeted by the NWLF was ever issued a CCW, your defense fails.

Hyperbole is not your friend, non, and you really should avoid it. You've made claims that you're simply unable to prove as fact (but I'm glad you tried, anyway; maybe you'll learn to stop spouting undocumented nonsense from this little exercise ).

1. You insisted DiFi issued herself a CCW. But of course, she did not; the Chief of Police did.

So what? How is it that the Chief of Police's boss gets a CCW but none of the other people who got threatened get one? That's the excuse Feinwhine used, that she was being targeted by the NWLF. Obviously, she "suggested" the Chief issue her the permit, or, the Chief in fear for his job simply went ahead and issued it on his own. Either way, same effect, she's still the only person who got one.

2. You insisted that "none of the other people targeted by the NWLF got CCWs." When called on your hyperbole, you try to change your claim to "none of those people (the ones who were in San Francisco) got CCW's." Changing your assertion in mid-stream just isn't cricket, my friend. Unless and until you can show that, other than DiFi, not ONE person targeted by the NWLF was ever issued a CCW, your defense fails.

Good try, though. A for effort.

Jeez... you're a real stickler, aren't you? Well of course the Mayor and Police Chief of San Francisco only have jurisdiction in San Francisco. Duh... (scratches head)... did you even read the link? Probably not... check the list and tell me how many of those targets were in San Francisco. Gawd, y'know what, it doesn't even matter. The picture is very clear, the idiotic little word nazi games don't change it one iota. Feinstein got the only permit. We have a picture of her at the news conference with her finger on the trigger of an assault weapon. Then she announces she wants to ban all guns, for all Americans. Next she puts her name on an "assault weapons ban" that's anything but, and she's forced to water it down so much to pass anything that it's rendered entirely ineffectual. Now she's trying again, and she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything through the Senate, and zero chance in the House. Those are the facts. Do you have any more complaints?

The United States Armed Forces will not destroy our country to save it. That will not happen, period end of story.

In fact, if the US Army were told to fire on US citizens, I'm betting they wouldn't do it. I'm betting that moment, when the order comes out, will be the end of the US Army as an effective fighting force under the command of the President.

They did exactly that in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Robert E. Lee led US infantry to fire on Demonstrators in DC. Such a position is simply unrealistic and historically inaccurate.

There are a little over a million armed personnel in the DOD, and there are 300 million heavily armed civilians in the United States, many of which have automatic weapons that are superior to anything the US Army issues.

The gross population is something just shy of 330,000,000. To suggest that 300,000,000 of them are, “heavily armed civilians in the United States, many of which have automatic weapons that are superior to anything the US Army issues,” sounds highly exaggerated and unrealistic.

Nah, Djinn, this one won't be "the people versus the army". It'll be the People and the Army versus the Aristocrats, and the real question will be keeping the aristofucks away from the nuclear trigger.

Restricting sales of military weapons to civilians might lead to nuclear civil war? No matter how indirectly the threat is hinted, writing that a Second Amendment political action might lead to nuclear civil war is over the top, in my opinion. Threatening people into submitting to a political position is becoming an acceptable strategy.

Hmmmm interesting. I'd make the assumption that Pathfinders must be either:
1. Inherently unsafe vehicles to own and drive
2. Owned and driven by a disproportionate number of stupid and careless people.